scheduler

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful consequences beyond that: 'Off means nothing sends until it is on again' and that a hosted account never sends from the local machine, both of which affect how an agent reasons about the call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the key behavioral caveat are front-loaded, then the argument list follows. The per-parameter lines are warranted given 0% schema coverage, though the prose is slightly loose and could be tightened without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all six parameters are documented. What remains thin is guidance on the multi-action mode itself (what each action does), which is a meaningful gap for a tool whose behavior changes entirely by action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it enumerates the valid action values and explains all five remaining parameters (enabled, cloud, host, hours, campaign_id), including which actions each applies to and the 'cloud' sentinel for host.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('turn the autonomous scheduler on or off, or change how it runs') and explicitly names the sibling it is not: 'Reading its state, logs, activity or diagnostics is scheduler_status.' An agent can distinguish it from scheduler_status without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives one clear alternative (scheduler_status for reading) with the condition that selects it, and maps each parameter to the actions it applies to (e.g. 'enabled ... (toggle, report)'). However, it never explains when to choose among toggle, observe, always_on, backfill_cloud, send_from, or report, so the core action-selection decision is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.